Talk:Pulse nightclub shooting/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Gawker article - alleged use of gay dating app by shooter

So, an IP editor added content related to this piece by Gawker ([1]). In sum, it alleges that Mateen was a regular at the club and used a gay dating app. I removed the IP's addition as it was loaded with OR as well, but wondering what to do about this source. Gawker, to me, is WP:QUESTIONABLE, but I'm curious what others think. If this gets picked up by other more reputable sources, seems like something we should include? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we should be watching for other, more reliable sources, to expend some resources to verify this. It should stay out until they do (though I find the implication just as plausible as some others being proposed here). General Ization ^Talk 23:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Apps can't be gay? I'm gonna make the gayest Siri just for you, General Ization! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I was the IP editor. I think usually Gawker would be questionable, but I think they have proven that their Gaydar is on fleek. This was best proven in the Peter Thiel V Gawker case. 62.64.152.154 (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The Orlando Sentinel ran a piece on this four regular customers at the Orlando gay nightclub where a gunman killed 49 people said Monday that they had seen the killer, Omar Mateen, there before. Nothing about the app though.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A story from WABC-TV mentions the app. APK whisper in my ear 23:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It has now been reported by the Los Angeles Times, which names the Pulse patron who recognized Mateen outside the club at about 1 a.m. from his Jack'd profile, having communicated with him through the gay dating app for about a year before the shooting. The Times quotes the witness who said that Mateen's Jack'd profile information, along with his own phone presumably containing those messages, has now been turned over to the FBI for analysis. Other Pulse patrons claim to have seen and conversed with the attacker during previous social visits to the nightclub; the Times says he had visited for a year, and Gawker dates his visits to the past three years. Obviously this a powerful developing angle, which I think should be included certainly as more information emerges. (See my Talk page.) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It does seem strange to me that the person who communicated with Mateen would know that the profile information had been turned over to the FBI, but I guess there's a possibility. I don't think it should have been added to the article, because the relevance and veracity of a single source, when the source is Gawker, is probably not sufficient to maintain NPOV in the article. A person who uses a gay dating app is not necessarily gay, even if they send messages that suggest they are. Likewise, someone who visits a gay club isn't necessarily gay. Roches (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times quotes the witness, Kevin West, by name. He said he was in communication with Mateen online through "Jack'd" and, after the attack, contacted the FBI and turned over his own phone (this witness told MSNBC tonight that he had first communicated with Mateen more than a year ago, and again after Mateen renewed contact with him online through "Jack'd" three months ago). The Times is an RS source, and we are going only with what has been reported there; I agree, we are not yet able to draw conclusions about Mateen's sexuality, merely that he has been reported to have used gay chat and dating apps. A separate witness told MSNBC's Chris Hayes tonight, on camera, that he had seen Mateen's profile posted on Grindr, but quickly blocked him a year ago after concluding he was unstable. This witness also said another friend recognized Mateen through an Adam4Adam profile from the late 2000's, and was aware of two friends in communication with Mateen who had voluntarily turned over cellphones to the FBI.

Like you, I weigh on the side on caution and against drawing preliminary conclusions. I suspect this will all be reliably reported in the fullness of time. Please read the Los Angeles Times article, which confirms that Mateen's use of gay dating apps are part of the investigation: "Investigators are looking at reports that Mateen visited gay clubs and was using gay dating apps, a law enforcement official said. 'Watch that space,' the official said." Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

These things are widely reported and can be included - just please be careful not to go beyond what is actually known. For example so far I don't know (but maybe you do!) if Mateen was actually seeking a gay relationship or whether he was merely posing as gay to get intel about the site, case it out and make a plan of attack. Wnt (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

accurate count?

The following sections in the article give conflicting information.

"Once the officers got in, they found thirty-nine people dead inside the club and another two people dead outside.[19][24]"

"At least 49 people were killed; approximately another 53 people were injured in the shooting, with many requiring surgery in local hospitals.[34]"

"Thirty-eight people and the perpetrator were pronounced dead at the scene, while eleven people pronounced dead later at hospitals."

The first count, 39+2=41. The second states at least 49 were killed. The third, 38+1, indicates 39 dead at scene, plus 11 at hospital for 50. If you add the hospital total to the first count, 41+11=52. I know numbers are going to be off until all details are in, but we might want to add a note that counts are an estimate at this time, because I'm not certain which count here is right. Coolgamer (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The first is based on the Orlando Sentinel timeline cited at the second ref. The second and third are more or less in agreement, as the second excludes the perpetrator while the third includes the perpetrator among the dead. I'm in favor of removing the first, as only one ref among many makes that accounting (which is already discussed above at #Number of deaths). General Ization ^Talk 21:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully this gets cleaned up. I'm here as I saw "Once the officers entered the building, they found thirty-nine people dead inside the club and another two people dead outside" and then "Thirty-eight civilians and the gunman were pronounced dead at the scene, while eleven civilians were pronounced dead later at hospitals". We don't know if the 41 total in the first sentence includes the gunman but it's different than 38+1. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Once the officers entered the building," they could not have counted 39 people dead, because the were busy stopping the assailant. -Mardus /talk 15:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Political commentary in spite of consensus not to include

A determined editor has re-added conservative political commentary, ignoring the rough consensus here: Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved?. - MrX 01:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The statements summarized with notable people (such as the president, governor of FL, and Mayor of Orlando) and LIMITED other references in very summarized form by a representative sample of notable people and related groups should be the only thing in the reaction section. There is a separate article for reactions, all of this extra stuff can be put in there if people are interested in reading about it. Besides, much of the prose seems to not have a neutral point of view. --Flipper9 (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In my view, any summary should not include names or specific quotes. I agree that the newly added material is not a presented in a neutral way, nor is it representative of available source material.- MrX 01:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to rephrase, so long as it's accurate, and feel free to add the liberal side. But don't remove the conservative side just because no one's added the liberal side yet. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, there was no consensus not to include; there was consensus to include summaries, which the addition is. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems that this section keeps getting reverted, placed back, reverted... a reversion war. Can it be stopped until we get a real consensus? Flipper9 (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The same person has done it again, with an edit summary of "Half the political spectrum, voiced by prominent commentators, is not undue weight." Now, I really don't mind such material being added (I think it's a bit insightful), but there does seem to be a pro-conservative push for its inclusion, and the edit summary doesn't really prove how it's not undue. The only way I can see that material staying without actually violating WP:DUE is if we also have a liberal standpoint included as well. (But even then, that's pushing it.) Parsley Man (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

One of the problems is that the RfC isn't about whether a large block of text outlining conservative reactions (to liberal reactions) should be included. FallingGravity (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well then, let us begin the debate. Should the section of conservative reactions be included? And if so, should it be accompanied by a section of liberal reactions so it won't violate WP:DUE? Parsley Man (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Leave out this new content, it belongs in the other article about the reactions, if anywhere. Keep the present section and reactions limited per above comments-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know, the section is actually already in the reactions article. Parsley Man (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was under the impression that yesterday we decided to limit the reaction section to key people and things. Now I see we are straying off. But, maybe this particular reaction will end up being notable. If that is so, I do agree that the Liberal spectrum/reaction should also be added. This section is still getting out of hand, despite past lessons and the best efforts of some users to keep it simple and to the point. United States Man (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Include, and include liberal reactions I'm not against adding the liberal side. Just against removing the conservative side under the guise of it being "fringe" or "undue weight". I'll say it again: half the political spectrum is not a fringe opinion. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It sort of is, if most of the material in question just involves conservatives criticizing liberals and implying their partial responsibility in letting the attack happen. Parsley Man (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So if it's critical of liberals it's fringe? Non sequitur. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

And if it's critical of conservatives, it's fringe too. Unless there is a clear indication of liability from liberals and/or conservatives, Democrats and/or Republicans, etc., etc., we must be neutral about this. Parsley Man (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE. Criticism does NOT equal fringe theory by any sensible or policy-oriented definition. Documenting a reaction is not POV unless WP's voice endorses one view or the other. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, to me, it sounds like the material is endorsing that one view. Parsley Man (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Summarizing someone's statements isn't an endoresement. And the paragraph's been edited by another user anyway to make it even more NPOV. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 04:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No, Jujutsuan, it is certainly fringe. You inserted a YouTube clip to a fringe online commentator from a conspiracy-theory website. That is a paradigm case of fringe. Neutrality^talk 04:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Summary Only This section should be brief, with only pertinent responses. re: SHORT. There is a whole other article where you can include all view points and flesh this sort of thing out. Including all of this detail, listing every single viewpoint in the main article introduces politics and non-neutral point of view. Flipper9 (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Leave out, because a determined editor keeps putting that in. Now:

• Move Republicans' comments to the appropriate reactions article, which should for balance contain relevant criticism aired against Republicans' comments. Also include comments by Democrats.
• Summarise, that both political sides promote their messages, because election year.
• All from reliable sources.

-Mardus /talk 15:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Obviously include. If this article is going to attempt to summarize the political reactions, it needs to attempt to include the reactions from across the political spectrum. Like it or not, the views expressed in the paragraph in question are representative of the views of a significant portion of the American public and electorate. Excluding these views from this article (or relegating them to some obscure, rarely viewed sub-article) is inexcusable in my view. And I would prefer the inclusion of the original full paragraph rather than the noticeably trimmed-down version that can now be found exclusively in said sub-article. --Philpill691 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Leaving aside the more general question of whether "political commentary should be included," I want to note that the specific text inserted by Jujutsuan is completely unacceptable. Direct links to YouTube commentary from marginal, fringe figures—like a link to a YouTube clip from someone named Paul Joseph Watson, who apparently is "editor-at-large of Infowars.com" (a conspiratorial, fringe website run by Alex Jones) is wildly unacceptable. To devote multiple sentences to this insignificant, obscure individual from a kook website is outrageous.

If someone wanted to put a few short sentences (cited to a reliable news (not editorial) secondary source like the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, Reuters, etc.) about the spectrum of political reaction in the U.S., I would have no problem. But links to Twitter feeds, YouTube clips, marginal commentators is another matter altogether. Neutrality^talk 04:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You say it like everything was from Watson and Watson alone (who by the way is not nuts like Alex Jones). Crowder, Hemingway, and the other guy (forget his name at the moment) are notable either by their publications (last two) or their simple prominence among conservatives (Crowder was CPAC speaker, fmr Fox contributor). I'd be fine with not mentioning them by name, too. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 04:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• This probably merits a paragraph. Crowder doesn't need to be mentioned by name. -- Callinus (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we can't even dispute the POV of this section as the tag keeps getting removed. Did we reach a consensus? Flipper9 (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No, we haven't reached consensus. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 05:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems like we are going whole hog and including political reactions. How about including reactions by other third parties, prominent Democrats and Republicans not aligned with the presumptive nominees? To keep a NPOV, not that anyone seems to care about that anymore, we need to make this the biggest section of the whole article including debates over gun control, religion, etc. Flipper9 (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Flipper9 (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Wife of perpetrator - knowledge of attack beforehand

Should it be noted at the end of trump's section that Federal agents have confirmed that the gunman's wife knew well in advanced about the attack?[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.233.86 (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
NOTE: The above post was misplaced within the section "Trump's reaction". I have moved it here for visual clarity and to break it out from the general Talkpage hubbub. Shearonink (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The information is reliably-sourced and does seem worthy of discussion here and/or inclusion in the article. Shearonink (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Definitely worth including in the article.- MrX 18:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Must use caution. This amounts to alleging a crime, so we need to attribute the statement to the source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Corroborating sources and careful wording are needed.- MrX 18:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

'Terrorist Attack' in the lead?

The lead now refers to the shooting a "terrorist attack", although the sources I checked say that President Obama called it an "act of terror". Should we prominently call the shooting a terrorist attack, when so many sources are still speculating on motive? I think we need to establish some consensus for this.- MrX 18:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

From a semantic point of view I don't think there is a great deal of difference. The Orlando shooting easily meets the FBI's definition of domestic terrorism.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This was terrorism. I cannot comprehend the desperation of some editors to play down that, even with all the media sources and government sources. AusLondonder (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a great deal of difference, just like between a case of alcohol and a case of alcoholism. But there are a great deal of people successfully tricked by the wordplay, and many of these people publish news. So I'm fine with it, albeit in a surrender sort of way. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Great article - some feedback

I did a top-to-bottom reading and it's a great article. I saw three items that could be improved.

• In the Perpetrator section he marries and divorces someone but then shifts to that his wife drove him to the nightclub to case it. I found this to be a confusing shift.
• The Perpetrator section also has an unusual claim from a single source. It's cited but the citation also has a long thing with additional unusual claims. While the source is NBC News which should be a WP:RS I was not comfortable with this being in the WP article and feel we should wait until there's better confirmation. I see that the #Wife of perpetrator - knowledge of attack beforehand talk thread above also covers this. The sentence and citation is: NBC News reported that Mateen's wife "drove him once to the Pulse nightclub" to case it. Cite: "Omar Mateen's Wife Tried to Talk Him Out of Orlando Attack, Sources Say". NBC News. Omar Mateen's wife, Noor Zahi Salman, told the FBI she was with him when he bought ammunition and a holster, several officials familiar with the case said. She told the FBI that she once drove him to the gay nightclub, Pulse, because he wanted to scope it out.
• In the Political responses section at the very end of the article is a call-out quote if something U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump said. It's the only call-out in the article and appears to be WP:UNDUE. It would work better if this quote was in-line text or removed entirely as it's essentially political posturing. The #Trump bit thread above sort of covers this. Overall, the Political responses section looked like decent NPOV except for the use of a call-out.

--Marc Kupper|talk 19:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marc Kupper: Thank you for the feedback! Greatly appreciated! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you from me as well.- MrX 19:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this. For #3, are you talking about Trump's block quote going after Hillary? If so, that's already been removed. Neutrality^talk 19:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Political responses

Should we rename the Political responses section to Responses from journalists to political responses? If not, why is it that a direct quote from a politician is "much too much" to be included, but analysis by journalists of such quotes are fine? (see diffs: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting&type=revision&diff=725291547&oldid=725289680 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting&type=revision&diff=725294197&oldid=725293719)

Please remove your bias when editing, it's not helpful for anyone and it reeks of animosity. Zaostao (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No need to rename. Need to trim it. Remove all the crap from Clinton and Trump, as well as the coatracked stuff about gun control from the NYTimes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely with EvergreenFir.- MrX 19:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, I don't agree. Trump's reaction has received too much media coverage for it to be redacted from this article. You may not like what he said, but that's not an argument.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you could put it into his bio then.- MrX 20:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No because he reacted to this.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well then he can post it to his Facebook page or start a blog. His comments are purely political opportunism and have no business being in an encyclopedia article about a shooting. Note, I'm also opposed to self-serving political commentary from Clinton, Sanders, and Johnson.- MrX 20:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No need to rename. The last thing we want to do is start adding sentence- or paragraph-length block quotes from politicians. If we start doing that, the article and reaction section will absolutely bloat. We should keep this reasonably short (shorter than it is now), and rely on news pieces that have already synthesized the relevant info for us. (The sourced cited there now are news articles, not analysis or editorials). Neutrality^talk 19:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I would be fine with the "Remove all the crap from Clinton and Trump" suggestion, but it must be both, not one or other. It is not right to push a certain opinion, or to only criticize one candidate as this is not for political punditry, it's for recording the responses of political candidates to the tragedy. "accused" is biased enough towards Trump's statements, let alone the tangents about how his statements were supposedly wrong. Zaostao (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)16 (UTC)

I caution you against appealing to "balance" though. We need to reflect sources and give the topics they cover WP:DUE weight. That said, imho, WP:NOTNEWS still trumps (pun slightly intended) here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The text must follow the sources. Is it your contention that the Washington Post, Economist, New York Times, CNN, AP, etc. are all biased against Trump, and therefore we shouldn't rely on these sources because you view their reporting as critical? Neutrality^talk 20:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I am suggesting we rely on Trump's actual words to dictate what his response was to the tragedy, not a journalists response to his response. Zaostao (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary ones. We would do better to go by the news agencies' coverage, if at all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Political response. Again, if the section is to be renamed Responses from journalists to political responses or Chinese whispers or whatever then this section is great, but if not, what is better to ascertain what a politician's response was to an event than to actually quote what that politician said in reaction to the event? Zaostao (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No, EvergreenFir was correct.

(1) What you refer to as "responses from journalists" is really just reporting. This is not commentary, but reporting.

(2) Wikipedia prefers secondary over primary sources because we are an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. Reliance on secondary sources is superior to reliance on primary sources for two main reasons. First, reliance on primary sources is an invitation to "cherry-picked" content. Second, if only primary sources are relied upon, than we lose much of the context and factchecking added by journalists. Neutrality^talk 20:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Seeking comment on these two edits by Zaostao:

• This edit added the words: "Trump referenced the November 2015 Paris attacks in his speech..." Is there any reason at all to include this? This tells the reader almost nothing of substance. Hillary Clinton also mentioned the Paris attacks in her speech. It is irrelevant, and I am inclined to remove it.
• This edit removed sourced content noting that no evidence supports Trump's assertion that American Muslims were complicit in the attack; it leaves only the accusation (introducing it with the word "alleged that..."). If we are to include Trump's statement on this point at all, it seems to me that we are absolutely bound to note (as all the sources do) that no evidence supports the claim. This is not quite a WP:BLPGROUP issue, but it certainly raises similar concerns. Neutrality^talk 20:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I amended the first, I was trying to remove 'bloat' but went too far, apologies. The second, Trump was referencing "terrorist acts" plural, not this specific attack. If anything else is to be added, it should be mention of the San Bernardino attack and the surrounding controversy as to members of the Muslim community not taking suspicions to the police. Zaostao (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

United States

It seems fairly sensible to state the country where such an incident has occurred, but someone keeps removing "United States" from the opening sentences. I've restored it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary. Is there anyone on the planet who thinks Orlando, Florida is in some other country?- MrX 18:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Possibly. But there are certainly a great many people who don't know which country Orlando, Florida is in. We're writing a global encyclopedia here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The infobox seems sufficient for that. No need to put in lead sentence. We also provide links to Orlando, Florida which can inform the reader if they are unfamiliar with the location. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The infobox, important though it is, is collapsed for mobile users and hidden from users of other systems that pull in the lede of the article; as may be the link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. Honestly don't think it's necessary but I'm not going to fight to remove it. More worried about the bloat in the reactions section. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So really we're talking about the few people reading an English language article on a mobile device, who have not heard of Orlando, Florida, and who cannot or will not click on the wikilink. Are we sure that they have even heard of the United States?

Somehow, I think we can safely leave 'United States' out of the lead sentence.- MrX 19:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The lead should say United States. There are English speaking readers from all over the world and they need to have complete information. Its not our job to guess at whether most people know where Orlando is or not. I suggest that assuming everyone knows where this city is, is a US centric position. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC))

I guess I'm going to have to disagree with pretty much everything you wrote. Also, November 2015 Paris attacks.- MrX 20:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Its important as an encyclopedia that we have and are responsible for encyclopedic knowledge which does not assume anything. The Paris article should also note the country in which the city is located. There are other towns/cities named Paris in the world. We have children reading this encyclopedia. They should have the information in the first line about country/ city. As editors we cannot assume the educational level of our readers.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC))

I have to agree with Littleolive oil; English is the first language of many countries not in North America, and a common second language in many, many more. Knowing the fact that English-language articles are oft better fleshed out, and far greater in number than articles in many other languages, it is not unreasonable to believe that there would be readers who do not necessarily known that Florida is part of the United States, or that Orlando is in Florida. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

They do both sound a bit Spanish. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Explosive vest or no Explosive Vest

Do we know yet if this supporter of Muslim Violence against Americans, Omar Marteen's vest was of the explosive variety, like those of many of what these Islamists have used against the citizens of western democracies in the past? It seems as this has been silenced by the government agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.218.67 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Mateen told police that he had a bomb belt or explosives during the hostage situation.[4] It was this information that made the police blow a hole in the wall and storm the building, as they believed that this was the best way to save lives. Whether he did have explosives is unclear. My guess is that he didn't, because he would have found them harder to obtain than a gun in Florida.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So we still do NOT know for sure???

Current wording in the article is "Officers initially believed he was armed with a "device" that posed a threat, but it was later revealed to be an exit sign or smoke detector that had fallen down." This is one of many things that is still unclear, but it looks unlikely that he had a real bomb.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Label as mass shooting or terrorist attack?

I've noticed this little conflict going on in regards to the Current template, so I thought I'd address it here. Should we label this incident as a mass shooting in said template, or as a terrorist attack? Parsley Man (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Mass shooting is the easiest and most documented. When getting into terrorist attacks, it becomes 'What kind of terrorist attack?'. United States Man (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it not both? Neutrality^talk 04:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But there's been conflict over whether it should be referred to as one or the other in the Current template. Parsley Man (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We can use both terms in the template, if desired, correct? Both would be equally accurate, though one goes to "motivation" and the other to "means." Neutrality^talk 04:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Both would probably be more preferable. United States Man (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A "terrorist attack" generally refers to foreign calibration. We don't know if the shooter was directly working with anyone outside of the United States. We do know he claimed his allegiance to ISIL, but anyone can do this, regardless of their intentions or nationality, and it would not be considered an act of "terrorism" because there is no foreign connection. Whoever keeps changing these edits is being disruptive by adding the label of "terrorist attack" Technically all shootings are domestic terrorism, but we only apply the "terrorist" label to real foreign calibration. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the current wording of "terrorist attack committed in the form of a mass shooting" works well enough. I think it's acceptable to classify ISIL-inspired terrorist acts as "terrorism," even if they don't have actual ISIL organizational involvement, because the goal of both is ultimately the same.--Slon02 (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Do you really believe that? I think you are purposely avoiding common sense just to be disruptive. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, perhaps the person who keeps editing this one simple line which doesn't really need any further clarification, really wants ISIL to have the all time high score of American mass shootings. Perhaps it's better this event be kept as domestic, rather than giving the title of "worst american shooting" to a foreign group. Because they actually enjoy this title. At least keep it simple without the "terrorism" for now until we have better information. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't like calling it a terrorist attack without knowing a motive, but it's a losing battle. The rabble is strong. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is absurd. The chief of police and the President called this a terrorist attack. Sources[[5]] seem not to matter any more? Mootros (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Police Chief, the Sheriff, Congressmen, both U.S. Senators for Florida, Director of the FBI, Governor of Florida have all clearly and definitively labelled this not only a terrorist attack, but an Islamic terrorist attack. The President of the United States has called it an act of terrorism. The levels from local to national have called it terrorism at the least, if not going further to add Islamic, which is a different subject here. Any suggestion that this should be labeled as anything less than a terrorist attack is stupid and factually inaccurate. Authorities and officials have labeled it such, he committed a crime, and attack which has caused terror, and did so under the banner of allegiance to ISIL, an ideological group to say the least. A mass shooting is an event that a mentally ill or otherwise deranged person can commit, like Sandy Hook. A terrorist attack is specific and far more significant, especially when tied at least ideologically to ISIL, as it now bears serious geopolitical implications in what politicians, present a prospective, will do in the future.   Spartan7W §   18:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Terrorist Attack Sources say it, it is one. Jadeslair (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Object to the binary choice presented. It can be both terrorism and mass shooting, and it is both. But it's no longer clear what exactly is being debated here, since this started as "Should we label this incident as a mass shooting in said template ({{Current}})", and that template is no longer in the article. This leaves us with infobox fields and body text, which are very different animals and should be discussed separately. The body already refers to terrorism many times. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Was he killed by police or did he commit suicide? FIX THIS-

On June 12, 2016, 49 people were killed and 53 others were wounded inside the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States by a gunman before he himself was killed by police after a three-hour siege.204.99.118.9 (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It means EXACTLY what it means. Don't know what you're missing here... Parsley Man (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and rewrote the first sentence, so anyone confused now is just confused. United States Man (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Procedural close due to another ongoing RM regarding this same article. Also a SNOW situation. (non-admin closure) Chase (talk | contributions) 23:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting → Orlando massacre – The name '2016 Orlando nightclub shooting' is very long and cumbersome, and 'massacre' has fallen into widespread use both colloquially and with the media ~ Henry ^TALK 00:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. As per the discussion above, the most agreed-upon alt title without "2016" was Orlando nightclub massacre. If you change your choice to that, I will support. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose: Title is accurate and precise as is. It is soon to observe "widespread" use; if and only if sustained public discussion uses the term "massacre" would the move be appropriate. "2016" is essential for disambiguation, even though the event was notably worse than any other shooting. --Zfish118^⋉talk 03:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature 48 hours after the event. I'd wait at least a week (20th, say) before any more RMing, but we can spend that time developing clear consensus on questions not dependent on sources, such as year-or-no-year. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose the year qualifier is an important indicator of this incident. In 100 years it will help to disambiguate w/ other articles and also anchor this moment in our history. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose — The whole city of Orlando was not attacked. -Mardus /talk 15:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mardus.- MrX 16:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Present main title is precise as to time/place, other possible variants can be redirects for the time-being. The word "nightclub" should be in the title. Shearonink (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Topic Sentence/Paragraph

Several people have attempted to change the lede paragraph from

The Orlando nightclub shooting, also known as the Orlando massacre, was a terrorist attack committed in the form of a mass shooting. It occurred at the Pulse a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, on June 12, 2016. The attack was the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks of 2001.

to

On June 12, 2016, a mass shooting occurred at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Forty-nine people were murdered and fifty others were wounded inside the nightclub by a gunman before he was killed by police after a three-hour siege. The attack, which has been deemed terrorism, is the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks of 2001.

The original is the better one, as per MOS:BEGIN, and MOS:BOLDTITLE. If you wish to discuss this, please reply to this section. ~ Henry ^TALK 17:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Usually, on these articles, the title is not repeated exactly in the lead if it interferes with the natural flow of the text. Also, adding "Orlando massacre" is imprecise and slightly sensationalistic.- MrX 17:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how the title interferes with the flow of the text. If anything, it is more descriptive. Also, I disagree with you about "Orlando massacre". The phrase is used both colloquially and in media coverage, so it has a place in the beginning. It could be compared to the lead sentence in the Virginia Tech Shooting article. ~ Henry ^TALK 17:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Your actions are in blatant disregard of the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Avoid_these_common_mistakes. Please stop reverting Mootros (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see here: Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule Mootros (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mootros: Please see my response to that at my talk page ~ Henry ^TALK 18:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The "also known as" is not necessary because WP:BOLDTITLE uses this for situations where two different names are common, like "Mumbai, also known as Bombay". Here "massacre" is just a less-specific, more sensational form of "nightclub shooting." Also, there is information present in the second version missing in the first. So I suggest:

The Orlando nightclub shooting was a mass shooting that occurred on June 12, 2016 at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Forty-nine people were killed and fifty others were wounded in a three-hour siege that resulted in the death of the gunman. The shooting, described as a terror attack, is the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks of 2001.

This includes the number of people killed and wounded.

Roches (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC) @Mootros: I was going to say the second/former version is also acceptable. Per your citation of the MoS, the version beginning "On June 12, 2016" is better than the version I suggested. Roches (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I like how you included the number of people killed and wounded, but I have to disagree with you on massacre. Both 'shooting' and 'massacre' are commonly used throughout the media, politically, and colloquially. ~ Henry ^TALK 18:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Both terms are used, but the terms are synonymous. Roches (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We don't need clumsy sentences like The Orlando nightclub shooting was a mass shooting... Please read the beginners guide Mootros (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mootros. Repeating the word shooting and treating the title of the article as if it were an official title for the shooting is not good writing style.- MrX 18:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

How about this?

The Orlando massacre was a terrorist attack that occurred on June 12, 2016 at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Forty-nine people were killed and fifty others were wounded in a three-hour siege that resulted in the death of the gunman. The shooting, described as a terror attack, is the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history, the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history, and the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks of 2001.

Henry ^TALK 18:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is what others seem to have agreed on... Simplicity and clarity Mootros (talk)

On June 12, 2016, a terrorist attack consisting of a mass shooting occurred at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States.

I was trying to paste the suggestion above in to avoid edit conflicts and didn't see the relevant part of the MoS until after. So yes, that's right about repeating "shooting". I really think "massacre" is sensationalistic and I certainly don't think it should be the only title. Since there is no formal title, there does not need to be any bold tile. (Nearly all the leads I edit have formal bold titles.) Roches (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that "massacre" is sensationalistic. Massacre is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "the indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people". ~ Henry ^TALK 18:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Awkward. "Orlando massacre" is tabloidesque. The lead was fine before people started messing with the first sentence. This

"On June 12, 2016, a terrorist attack consisting of a mass shooting occurred at Pulse"

is especially poor writing, and mere speculation that this was actually a "terrorist attack".- MrX 18:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We go by facts Mootros (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mootros: in the very video that you reference, the president himself calls the event a 'massacre', yet you say that the term massacre is sensationalistic - why do this? ~ Henry ^TALK 18:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there somewhere else where this has been discussed? There seems to be a huge lack of consensus in the naming of such articles (see Columbine High School massacre) and the lead of Virginia Tech shooting is near identical to the previous versions of this article. Seems like the type of thing which would need arbitration. Zaostao (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Fine example of a poorly written lead. Mootros (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mootros: The URL you added to the hidden comment in the lead is not a functioning URL at ABCNews. Could you try again? General Ization ^Talk 18:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I fixed it. You had omitted the story ID. General Ization ^Talk 18:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@HenryMP02: I don't think The 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting... is natural wording, but the practice of using the article title in the lead of mass murders (like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or Columbine High School massacre) is pretty well established, thus why editors may be compelled to have such a wording as The 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting.... Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I like the current first para as shown in this revision. In this case, any attempt to shoehorn in the article title, based on a convention that too many incorrectly see as something required by guidelines, will result in awkward and cumbersome language. No matter what we settle on for this title, it will probably not be a "household-word" name like, for example, Oklahoma City bombing. If such a common name eventually emerges, that will take at least a couple of months, and we can revisit this at that time. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Seddique Mateen - father of the perpetrator

It seems like Seddique Mateen is giving interviews to the press. Some of these interviews gives the impression, that Seddique Mateen is living or has been living in a state of denial. I have not read any of the English language interviews, yet, but I am confident that there must be something worthwhile adding to this article. After reading the interviews with Omar Seddiques father, I feel more enlighted about what state of mind Omar must have been in all of his life - in case he actually was gay. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Last I looked, all of this had been transferred to Omar Mateen. This is valid WP:summary style. We should not lose these clues, but for now they don't seem of top-level relevance to our understanding of the case, and can be fobbed off to the more specialized biography. Wnt (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That is okay with me. Perhaps the father's roll in Omar's life is better scrutinized in the Omar Mateen article. A man who attends mosque 3-4 times a week with his father and son, and then allegedly picks up men in the weekends, well, he's positioned somewhere between a rock and a hard place. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 00:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"Deadliest" is the wrong word.

There are not degrees of "deadly". It is an absolute term indicate the causing or being able to cause death. Every fatal shooting is deadly, by definition. A proper description, of a mass killing of more people than in any other mass shooting in the given time/locale, may take more than a tagline-length sentence. LowKey (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It is deadliest, meaning it has more deaths than other attacks. Don't really see why this is a problem. United States Man (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

^^^^ Concur. There's the dictionary definition, and there's the almost universal usage of the word in news coverage of such incidents, and we can reasonably go with the latter. Besides, there would be no way to measure or quantify "deadliest" using the dictionary definition, so it's fairly obvious what we mean by it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If there were no degrees of "deadly", "deadlier", "deadliest" or "deadliness" wouldn't be words at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is "most deadly" a more acceptable term (or sounds better) to the most scholarly qualified persons who might answer this discussion, than "deadliest". I actually think that LowKey might be on to something; either an attack is deadly, or it is not. Suggestion for replacement text: "This deadly attack, counted 50 deaths and 53 injured survivors; such an attack has not had a higher death count since ...". On the other hand, this is not a website only for the Rain Man movie character and Mensa members with a major in English and perhaps also Boolean algebra. 46.212.55.223 (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Deadly, deadlier, and deadliest are all adverbs to qualify the word "deadly." That said, I don't agree that "deadliest" is being misused here. Indeed, this attack is the most deadly, but either way ("most deadly" or "deadliest") is fine, they mean the same thing in casual conversation, and few are likely to think otherwise. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree with the grammar reasoning, but that's ok as long you support my position. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The replacement suggestion is relatively wordy. We shouldn't waste readers' time when a more concise statement is just as precise. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump bit

Well, as we predicted, introducing candidate-by-candidate breakdowns in the "Reactions" section is not going well.

An editor is repeatedly changing our summary to characterize the remarks in a way directly at odds with the sources (NY Times, Washington Post, The Economist), and in a way that makes no sense as well (i.e., this newly added text is gibberish: "radical Muslim immigrants posed a danger to U.S. security and asserted they must form a partnership with the Muslim community"). Neutrality^talk 15:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The same user is now deleting all the secondary sources (news accounts) and replacing them to a YouTube clip of Trump's speech. Can someone intervene? Neutrality^talk 15:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources are not reliable and are weighted against Trump, saying opinionated things such as he is "antagonistic" and outright LIES, like he said "all muslim imigrants" are to blame. I replaced it with DIRECT QUOTES from the speech as well as purely citing the speech itself. Clinton's bit doesn't have contradicting and inflammatory information in her paragraph, so why does Trump's? Even if the sources are reliable if they are reporting false information that was not said, it should not be added! TJD2 (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing other people's sources is obnoxious, more so when it's edit warring. However, I do believe the Trump primary speech should be included, because I always believe in letting the subject have his say. Unless we get rid of anything about Trump's political reaction (fobbing it off on the reactions sub-article instead) we should have that source here so that people have the horse's mouth link. Wnt (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

TJD2: sorry, but news accounts in the Washington Post, the New York Times, etc. are reliable sources. Ask at WP:RS/N if you would like more input. The current version adequately reflects the range of sources, and the sources do reflect Trump's own remarks. There are many other cites to the same effect, e.g., CNN: "The real estate magnate also appeared to equate all Muslims who seek to come to the United States with the perpetrators of recent terror attacks -- another claim that seems to fly in the face of the evidence about a community that has been present in the U.S. for decades. 'We cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour into our country many of whom have the same thought process as this savage killer,' Trump said.").

The summary of Trump's remarks contain more controversial material than the summary of Clinton's remarks because Trump's remarks were more controversial. See, e.g., CNN: "[Trump] delivered some of the most explosive and forceful political rhetoric uttered by a major U.S. political figure in many years, seeming to show little regard for facts...Trump's rhetoric ... contrasted sharply with the more nuanced and conventional response to the attack delivered earlier by Clinton.").

We follow what the sources say here. That is simple, basic principle. Neutrality^talk 15:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• The sources are misquoting him though, shouldn't that be acknowledged?? I watched the entire speech and he never said what these "sources" are quoting. TJD2 (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In the "Reactions" section, there are more sentences about Democrats than Republicans. It should be even. Moreover, didn't Trump address this prior to Clinton? Why is Clinton mentioned before Trump, if he did? Finally, did Clinton talk about the Clinton Foundation's links to those Middle Eastern countries she decried in her speech?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

How is it NPOV when Hilliary's paragraph has what she plans on doing should she become president, but none of her statements are refuted. It seems as though the entire paragraph for Trump was put in solely to demonize him and make him out to be wrong on everything he said. Put the facts, what he said, and not "interpretations" of what he said. Washington Post itself is a reliable source but come on, the author is clearly trying to push a narrative and we on Wikipedia need to maintain a balance. TJD2 (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• This is not an article about what political candidates think about Muslims. Edit warring and poor-sourcing are not acceptable, especially when combined.- MrX 15:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• It is NOT poor sourcing!! I included a complete video of his speech. Relevant and reliable. TJD2 (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@TJD2: Take a tip from real life here. If ideology inspires one guy to build a beautiful mosque and another to build a beautiful gay bar, that's a good thing. If ideology inspires one guy to shoot up a beautiful mosque and one guy to shoot up a beautiful gay bar, that's a bad thing. POV on Wikipedia works the same way. Be the guy who is out finding new sources with respected Republican commentators who refute Hillary and justify Trump, not the guy taking out the sources that do the opposite. Don't be the guy shooting up the article. Wnt (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

...and now, thanks to a cherry-picked quote, Trump is trumpeted as the defender of the LGBLT community? I saw the entire speech also. The content as written doesn't come close to representing the widespread reporting that Trump was using the mass shooting as an opportunity to further his platform (and so did Hillary).- MrX 15:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is time.com an unreliable source? I was just directly quoting a presidential candidate's response to the horrible attack. Zaostao (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Why talk down to a fellow editor in a condescending tone? I added a new source and quoted him directly from what he said. It is obvious from what I'm seeing here that most editors have a distaste for Trump, and it's definitely coming out in the talk page. I'm done here. Not worth my time getting into it any further. We might as well go all the way and call his speech racist and bigoted and write that it "only solidifies the imminent disaster of a Trump Presidency we cannot allow to happen", or something of that effect. I'm sick of trying to instill a bit of neutral POV in an article that is obviously weighted towards Clinton. Now I get personally attacked and told I'm not doing anything constructive? Nothing I put in here will stay more than 20 seconds anyways, so I'm done. TJD2 (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Trump said he would keep all Americans safe, including the LGBT community. Has Clinton addressed the Clinton Foundation's links to the countries she decried in her speech?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Please stop trolling. - MrX 16:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Zigzig20s, your account dates back to 2006—you should know better than this. Don't troll. Neutrality^talk 16:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not. Please assume good faith. I have no opinion about this. But there is this...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So this is how you act MrX? Apparently anything positive about Trump means they are trolling and deserve to be compared to the shooter? I still cannot believe I was compared to the shooter simply for trying to instill balance. I'm considering reporting that to the admins. TJD2 (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly how I act. If you are concerned about my behaviour, I invite you to avail yourself of one of our noticeboards. This is not an article for making Trump or Clinton look good. I don't know who compared you to the shooter or what that has to do with me.- MrX 16:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry MrX You didn't compare me to the shooter, Wnt did. I should have expressed that in my original sentence. I am however concerned that you jump to the conclusion someone that adding neutrality to a section biased towards Clinton means they are trolling. TJD2 (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@TJD2: My intention isn't to compare you to the shooter in any moral way. Putting a hole in a person and putting a hole in a Wikipedia article are two different things. But please, don't take out useful, reliable sources simply to "tone down" or "balance" a point of view. If those sources are misrepresented, you can add more text based on them, or even change which parts you cover, but leave the sources themselves! And if they're not misrepresented, if they're partisan, then by definition there will be other parties writing other sources that this article needs to have added for balance. Wnt (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The article needs to provide perspective by mentioning that Hillary wants to violate the Bill of Rights by attacking the civil rights of all Americans because of the actions of terrorists - since that is what she means by "gun control." In the Trump section there should also be a list of recent terrorist attacks conducted by Muslims, as Trump has quite valid arguments, as evidenced by what is called.....reality. As it stands, the article makes it appear that Wikipedia is in the paid propaganda branch of the Hillary campaign, and Wikipedia is against the Bill of Rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMan (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That is completely WP:POV and therefore unacceptable. Parsley Man (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Obliviously. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have undid this edit, which removes (with no policy-based reason whatsoever) the text that notes that no evidence supports Trump's claim that American Muslims were somehow complicit in the attack. To include what is effectively a slur on a whole community community—without noting that no evidence supports the claim—diverge from the sources and actively misleads the reader. Neutrality^talk 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Seriously, what is it about Trump's statements that ABSOLUTELY MUST make it into the article?! This is what I meant when I earlier stated that there might be some pro-Trump bias going on! Parsley Man (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

UpStairs should not be removed from the WP:SEEALSO (UNLESS MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE).

I fail to see how the fire at UpStairs is unrelated as both acts were acts of violence specifically targeting homosexual people so the link is relevant to this article. --1.52.121.50 (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's related enough to warrant inclusion per WP:SEEALSO. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The purists seem to have removed UpStairs Lounge arson attack because it was an arson attack rather than a shooting, and because nobody was ever brought to justice, making the motive unclear. It is back in the See also section at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was a) an arson b) in another state c) more than forty years ago d) without any international terrorist angle ... unfortunately, anti-gay attacks in the U.S. have not been so rare that you can take that attack and this one and lump them together in a way that makes them truly unique compared to all the others. Wnt (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If the UpStairs Lounge fire was started by a disgruntled customer who was thrown out of the bar a few hours earlier, it wasn't necessarily a homophobic attack. It was, however, an incident in which many gay men died.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately the crime is unsolved - that person was at most a suspect, and from what I'm reading the police were minimally interested in investigating. Anyway, I've taken a stab at the issue with this diff: [6]. Wnt (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Blood ban being reported as part of the call for blood in Orlando

Please restore:

News outlets noted the controversial federal blood ban that does not allow gay and bisexual men to donate if they have been sexually active with other men in the past year, and characterized the ban as being homophobic in nature.

Computationsaysno (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Given the entire attack is brimming with homophobia, as also reported by news sources, this seems on point and a suspicious omission on Wikipedia's part. Computationsaysno (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

References

It's associated, but not related to this article. I said elsewhere, I'd only be for including it if the Red Cross cites this event when they update their screening materials or if they make other future changes. At the moment though, it's just WP:COATRACK to include that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. It seems like it's being covered specifically because this event. The irony that the event was against gays and people are asked to donate blood to help but then ... gays are not allowed unless they are celibate for a year. I don't think we should ignore news sources until a specific condition is met beyond news sources stating its importance. Computationsaysno (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll look when I have more time to find even stronger sources. I saw it on the news so I know it's being covered. Computationsaysno (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

More, showing this issue being reported worldwide by news sources (Ireland, England, Russia, Australia):

References

(edit conflict) It is an ironic and unfortunate situation, but calling it homophobic is too much. I favor including the proposed material if the wording can be changed to remove "homophobic".- MrX 02:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That's what the news sources are characterizing it as, why would we censor that? Computationsaysno (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Fine, put it in then. Please use {{reflist-talk}} when adding cites to a talk page and notice that you have a duplicate.- MrX 02:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with putting it in but if calling it "homophobic", make sure you say it like "CNN called these actions 'homophobic'", since you need to attribute it to the source.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll review and try to find a mainstream one and quote them. Thank you everyone! Computationsaysno (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

wife under investigation by grand jury

Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen’s wife under investigation by grand jury. "Noor Zahi Salman, Omar Mateen’s second wife, was by his side as he bought ammunition and even drove him to the Pulse nightclub once to scope out the site of his sickening act, officials told NBC News." I think that calls for a section under "investigation" about the second wife? --Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

References

I'd rather wait till a named person says so. "Law enforcement source" has often been wrong over the decades. Probably why s/he likes the anonymity. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Same. BLP concerns here. Either wait until indictment comes forth, a named person says it, or a ton of sources report it. NY Daily News is not enough. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

NY Daily News picked it up from Fox News, but I agree otherwise.- MrX 02:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

ISIL M.O. and motive

From NYT:

Unlike Al Qaeda, which favors highly organized and planned operations, the Islamic State has encouraged anyone to take up arms in its name, and uses a sophisticated campaign of social media to inspire future attacks by unstable individuals with little history of embracing radical Islam.

I confess to not knowing that until now. So there can be no direct ISIS "involvement" yet to be uncovered and reported. What, then, could ever justify "Islamic terrorism" in our Motive field, if ISIS inspiration is not enough? What exactly are we waiting to see? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"Islamic terrorism" belongs no where in the article unless and until the FBI, State Department, DHS, or the President declare it as such. If someone keeps adding it it, it's probably a sock puppet of the indeffed user who added it no less than 12 times yesterday.- MrX 12:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's new. So in your view a consensus among reliable sources would not be enough without that. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Self-radicalization via social media is a well documented way of recruiting people to the radical Islamic cause. A lot of what has happened in Orlando is similar to the 2015 San Bernardino attack. A person can read radical Islamic material online and become converted to the cause very quickly, even if they do not have formal membership of a terrorist organization. The person may make a Bay'ah (pledge of allegiance) to the terrorist organization even if they have no formal membership. The media has not been specific enough about this and has given the impression that Orlando was a planned Islamic terror attack when it almost certainly wasn't. ISIL is good at setting up propaganda websites which can encourage this type of behavior.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources should be citing a law enforcement and/or government sources who would know such things. Speculation and anonymous scoops do not belong.- MrX 12:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we seem to be setting an impossibly high threshold for calling this Islamic terrorism. As you said, ISIS-inspired vs ISIS-directed makes little difference, considering their MO of encouraging independent action. It's still terrorism. The perpetrator calling 911 in the middle of an attack he's unlikely to escape alive and voluntarily explaining his motivation to authorities is practically the equivalent of a deathbed confession. I can scarcely imagine a statement with a higher degree of credibility. If this case doesn't merit the phrase "Islamic terrorism," then nothing does. Dansan99 (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Is the argument simply over whether terrorism that is "ISIS-inspired" but not "ISIS-directed" counts as radical Islamic terrorism? Evercat (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's early days, but investigators will be looking at the things that Mateen was doing on the Internet. The evidence so far supports the lone wolf theory, rather than the planned work of a terrorist organization. The U.S. authorities are leaning towards "ISIL inspired" rather than "ISIL directed".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You can be a lone wolf and a terrorist at the same time. The two words are not synonymous. Jadeslair (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, but the case needs to be made for why lone-wolf terrorism doesn't fall under "Islamist terrorism" or whatever the term is. Evercat (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That was my question, Ian. According to NYT, there is no "ISIL directed". ―Mandruss ☎ 12:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Meh, perhaps this is pointless argument over semantics. The article is actually in a reasonable shape, given that it explicitly says all this in the 2nd paragraph (currently). Evercat (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Orlando attack could be seen as a form of 21st century warfare. There are no formal armies or leadership, but people are encouraged to do their thing for the cause. This means that "lone wolf" and "terrorist attack" both apply at the same time. It's weird, but this is how ISIL operates.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There's been a lot of speculation in the past 12 hours about the motive and that the murderer may be homophobic or self-loathing. Certainly that is at least as lead worthy as the dubious ISIL connection.- MrX 13:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

He proclaimed his allegiance to ISIS. What's dubious about it? Certainly that's not the same as being directed by ISIS. Evercat (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It isn't in dispute that Mateen made a Bay'ah to ISIL in a 911 call during the attack.[7] What is disputed is whether he ever met or had any dealings with anyone from the organization prior to the attack. The homosexual self-loathing angle is still in its early days, and needs time to develop.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. He could have just as well claimed his allegiance to Santa Claus, but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't get coal in his stocking.- MrX 13:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But it wouldn't hurt just in case. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There's some suggestion his declaration of allegiance isn't to be taken seriously, i.e. isn't indicative of what he actually believed? Evercat (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel that the way the motive is presented now is as good as it could be (In the attack section: ...expressed sympathy for Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev... and made a reference to ...an acquaintance of his who died in a suicide bombing in Syria ...said he was inspired by Abu Salha's death for the Al-Nusra Front, and despite them being at war with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), claimed allegiance to the latter organization.") I also think, as many others do, that it was very likely that the perp. had homosexual tendencies and his own sexual orientation likely influenced his actions that day. (ie. the gay dating apps, reported sightings at the club before). It is very important, however, that we do not engage in OR. The 911 call is the basis for the association with islamic terrorism and, as above, even that was confused and contradictory. It would be fruitful for us to wait for sources that can make the connections that we need.

but I do not see any issues with how the motive is presented, at least how it is laid out in the attack section). - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

He (apparently) was a Hezbollah member in his own head recently enough. That conviction clearly wasn't firm if this one was, and vice versa. Seems confused, if not merely wishy-washy. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Mass shooters are all too often Walter Mitty characters. They are heroes in their own fantasy world, but that is the only place where they are heroes. Mateen may have looked at a few radical Islamic websites and thought "I could do that." Thanks to Florida's gun laws, he could.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That any fool can find a gun doesn't automatically mean any fool can bring their fantasy to life. His security experience and steroid use likely played a large part in his surviving as long as he did. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In light of his alleged steroid use, I would very much like to know the published results of the perpetrator's post-mortem toxicology report. (Am I rushing too far ahead with this?) -Mardus /talk 16:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Never too early to look forward to something, but these reports typically take a month or so. I don't even see news reports speculating yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The phrase "Islamic terrorism" has become a partisan political issue in the U.S. - see [8]. As a result, it may be inappropriate to put it in an infobox. This may not be an issue that is easily wrapped up in a neat little bow. However, I am appalled by User:MrX's proposal that we not include a phrase anywhere in the article unless the government uses it. Wikipedia seeks a neutral point of view, not an official point of view. Whether the government merely ascribes to a different pedantry than media, or whether they are seeking a specific political end by refusing to call terrorism "Islamic" because they maintain Islam denounces terrorism, they don't get to be the be-all and end-all of thought on the issue. Wnt (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I read "law enforcement and/or government sources". I don't like that "or" myself. Nothing terrible about saying so-and-so thinks it's such-and-such, but anywhere where it's in Wikipedia's voice, we should probably trust people trained and paid to solve crimes, not paid to get elected. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: Please don't be appalled by my rhetoric. The point is that we need to separate fact from speculation. We need to not simple slap a bunch of politically-charged labels all over the article. Yesterday, I lost count of how may times the words ISIL, Sunni, Shiite, and Islamic Terrorist were repeated in the article. There are editors trying to use this article as a political WP:SOAPBOX for promoting a narrative that Muslims are teh evil, or that particular types of Muslims are evil, all based on original research, poorly-sourced speculation, and just plain pulling it out of their asses. Fortunately, a couple have already been blocked, so hopefully we can get back to using reason.- MrX 15:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it would be prudent to block editing by newly-registered editors. -Mardus /talk 16:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Reaction section becoming UNDUE

The reaction section is like kudzu vine... and it's become overgrown again. Visually, it's about 1/4 of the article. I fear I'm being too overzealous on this matter and will not edit the section tonight, but I'd like some discussion about what should be included per WP:WEIGHT. IMHO, the father's comments and the pope's comments can go. The former is tangential at this point (possibly relevant later as details emerge) and the latter is a standard condolence. Frankly I say nuke the political responses for now as NOTNEWS. I cannot imagine any being notable a month from now. And since there's no deadline, if they are notable, we can add them later (e.g., if any political action actually occurs like with Sandy Hook). Commentary by the NYTimes and WaPo about gun control and politics are really UNDUE and coatracking. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI: The NYT and WaPo cites are all news reporting, not editorials or columns. I do agree that we need some sort of test so as to limit inexorable growth. A few useful bright-line rules for political reactions, off the top of my head, might be (1) "no pundits" (i.e., keep to elected officials); (2) stick to high-quality secondary sources (i.e., avoid citations to Twitter, YouTube, etc.), and (3) discuss matters in a general or overview format, except for relevant government officials (president, governor, mayor) and the two main presidential candidates (i.e., try to avoid a litany of every member of Congress). Neutrality^talk 07:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Understood, but just that they reported on it does not mean it has enduring notability. But I like what you suggest generally. Frankly, if in a week something's being covered by the news, I'd say include it then... it lasted through a news cycle. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

As to the shooter's father, I think his sentence can go, or alternately, we could move it under "perpetrator" since his comments are mainly about his son. I do not object to including a single sentence on the pope, although perhaps instead we could just refer to "world religious leaders" + cite without specifically mentioning any particular one in text (the Dalai Lama led a prayer in Washington for the victims, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has a statement as well, so if we included a quote from one but not the others, I'm sure someone could object, and reasonably so). Neutrality^talk 07:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I had hoped that we could keep political commentary out of the article, but the RfC and the section that I started ~9 hours ago are already so far up the page that there's little hope that anyone will read or comment in them. I agree with most of what EvergreenFir and Neutrality. We should mention that the shooting has reinvigorated the gun control debate, discuss i's effect on any pending legislation, and omit as much other detail as possible. We should aggressively avoid direct quotes, opinions, and social media (especially YouTube videos), and we should try to avoid mentioning names as much as possible. The subject of this article is the shooting, so the reactions section needs to be proportional to the more relevant content, such as the investigation.- MrX 11:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove any statement by the father. This is not merely a "reaction" like some talking head on CNN, but a direct window into the state of mind of the perpetrator. Also, while many of the reactions could be trimmed and packed off to the other article, the state of emergency declarations imply specific actions and are therefore part of the unfolding event - I wouldn't even have them under "reactions". Wnt (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Holy crap it's gotten worse. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the Father's comments to be relevant to the subject matter. Although the condolences can be trimmed down to one sentence. Listing the notable people that having given condolences and just cite sources for the readers if they wish to read further. DrkBlueXG (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

ISIL related reactions

In the couple hours I was working the section has grown by 10% and added another subsection. I'm gonna take another hack at it. Please note, I realize I've been editing that part a lot and do not wish to appear disruptive. If anyone disagrees, please revert me. At the same time, that section really needs to be kept in check per our policies of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: I see you re-added it. I still this it's undue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I readded it to to the general section you moved the "reportedly claimed responsibility" bit; someone else readded the subsection. I think the full Amaq quote is due, for clarity. It may be as reliable as a YouTube comment, but it's still the horse's mouth behind the actual reports. That makes it noteworthy, despite probably not existing, and reading it beats taking someone else's word for what it says. I wouldn't mind seeing the whole idea erased, but I figure somebody would then add just the paraphrased version back.

The al-Bayan bit is clearly due, considering all the rest of talk about ISIS. The group is something like the archvillain in this article, despite a connection probably not existing. If they weren't already prominent in the lead, I could see how their response would look undue. But they are. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete political reactions of all but Obama and the Governor

• Nuke all but Obama and Gov. Scott. Summarize the rest in two or three sentences. Punditry, coatracking about gun control debate, and the inflamatory comments of various politicians running for office have no lasting notability and are UNDUE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to support this. (Maybe with a quote from Mayor Dyer). The more content is added, the more this sprawls and sprawls. If you wanted to WP:BOLDly attempt a major shrinking, I wouldn't object... Neutrality^talk 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I couldn't disagree more. Trump's policy-based reaction should remain. It has received too much media coverage to be redacted from this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Will this be even remotely notable in 2 weeks? Does it have enduring notability? Just because it's been reported on doesn't mean we should include it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because he is likely to become the next POTUS.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Clinton is likely to become the next POTUS too. Point, Trump's statements isn't supposed to take precedence over every other candidate in the election. Parsley Man (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Nuke it all, except for Obama and the Governor. The rest is dangerously close to WP:UNDUE, and no consensus is likely to be reached thanks to the controversial status of Mr. Trump and Ms. Clinton. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 05:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support For reasons stated above. The only statements that should matter are those two. TJD2 (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support - I think some of this can make it in, but I'm honestly not too sure which, though. Parsley Man (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump's reaction

This is quite a bit of an WP:UNDUE issue where it's concerned. Is it really necessary? Parsley Man (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Dump it. Not helpful or necessary. United States Man (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with above. No candidate reaction should be necessary. Only the POTUS should count in this case! Keep the article neutral Rhumidian (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with above. This isn't the place for this. Mozzie (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You two are wrong. While POTUS is usually the most notable reaction his is not the only notable one. We are in the middle of an election where gun and Islam rights are factors and what Trump and Clinton say are both notable. Ranze (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

::Well, after Democrats' reaction was added, it does seem necessary now for a WP:DUE standpoint. Parsley Man (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Never mind. Parsley Man (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The best thing would be to get rid of both sides and leave it to a few main statements. United States Man (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I also think we should remove the Bob Casey Jr statement. A lot of people are calling for gun control, so attributing it to one person is borderline promotional. I removed it once, but was reverted.- MrX 00:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The gun control aspect is definitely a notable aspect (as it always is in all of these cases), but the Casey statement can go. Parsley Man (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. We can have a generalized cite to a secondary source that briefly summarizes the differences in response between the parties (if there are indeed any, and if their are reliable secondary sources that discuss it). But we definetely shouldn't have candidate-by-candidate breakdowns. One editor keeps a quote or text re: Trump's statement, cited to his campaign website (a WP:PRIMARY source). The same editor misleadingly used that cite to support an assertion about the "Republican position"—which is of course inaccurate, as Trump does not speak for every Republican. I've removed it, but this needs more eyes on it. Neutrality^talk 03:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lots of Republicans have argued that Trump doesn't speak for any of them ... 🖖ATS / Talk 03:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump's reaction should be included, whether we like it or not. It has received too much media coverage for us to ignore it.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lets wait a few days before doing that at leastBrxBrx (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Why? We have a "Reactions" section and the man likely to become the next POTUS reacted, with specific policy guidelines (temporary ban). Even The New York Times published an (anti-Trump) article about it. This should not be redacted from the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If we include Trump's reaction then we might as well also include Clinton's reaction, and maybe even Gary Johnson's reaction. Just so we know we have all bases covered. FallingGravity (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Once again Trump's reaction (especially regarding the American borders) has been included in the "Reactions" section, and people keep trying to emphasize it. Is it REALLY necessary? Parsley Man (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump is like catnip to the media. They'll cover him if he sneezed weird. As WP:NOTNEWS notes, just because it's reported on doesn't mean it's notable. I say exclude for now and only include if something more comes of it other than the typical media hype. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We have already discussed and arrived at consensus for leaving political commentary out. If someone want to revisit this, fine, but until a new consensus is reached, editors should not be adding such content.- MrX 01:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Kendrick7 is continuing to push for the inclusion of Trump's reaction, and has called every reversion attempt an act of "vandalism" despite my insistence for him to read this section. Parsley Man (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I've tried adding a different reaction than the one originally discussed here. But, man up. It's a national election year, and as such certain local and national political reactions matter. Most importantly: the Orlando mayor, the Orlando national rep., whoever is running to be the next Orlando Rep, the Florida governor, anyone running to be the next governor, Florida U.S. senators, anyone running to be the next Florida senator, the President, and whoever is running to replace him. This should not be in the least controversial. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting including the statements made by everyone you just listed? Parsley Man (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. How is that not common sense? -- Kendrick7^talk 03:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

First off, we have a reactions article for that (though that may or may not be deleted down the road). Second off, I'm going to quote United States Man from down below: "If Trump's statement is included, statements from other candidates must be included, and that goes against what we were trying to do with this section by keeping it short and trimmed down." Parsley Man (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The AfD on the reactions article seems to be leaning delete but to keep the important ones in the article; thus, it might be circular logic. I agree with Kendrick7's point that since this is an election year in the US, at the minimum we should include reactions from that list of people somewhere - in the main article, if the reactions article is deleted. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• It seems that people are adamant on including false information on Trump's reaction. He did not say all muslims are to blame and muslim imigrants are a threat to national security. I am replacing the clearly biased section with what he ACTUALLY SAID in his speech. TJD2 (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that in addition to Trump saying we should ban Muslim immigrants, we should include that the shooter was born in the US, and wasn't an immigrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.53.198.163 (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete The whole thing is covered in the reactions page (which doesnt seem to be going anywhere now). BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 03:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Turkish newspaper in Reactions section

There have been various version of the following added to the reactions section:

Yeni Akit, a Turkish newspaper close to the current Turkish government published a headline calling the victims as "deviant" or "perverted" which in turn was criticized by foreign media outlets.

The seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS to me. The reactions of one newspaper in Turkey is trivia and does not warrant their own mention (WP:WEIGHT), even if the reaction is counter to the norm. Unless this becomes bigger news, I don't see the need to include this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References

I agree. It's insignificant and forgettable. Let's leave it out.- MrX 22:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree as well. I almost pulled it out myself, so thanks for doing so.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you all, That kind of information would be better suited to articles dealing with homosexuality in Turkey/Islam instead of here. my 2 cents - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The text in sourced (in the Washington Post) to a tweet, which cites another tweet, by image only. "Sapkin escincellerin gittigi barda ollu sayisi 50'ye" is the text given in another forum. I have not been able to find, so far, either the original paper, or a photograph of it, or even a quality source which claims to have seen it. Given all this, and the concerns above, I am removing the claim. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC).

On this occasion MrX beat me to the removal, but the claim has been in the article at least three times, so it's worth watching out for. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC).

@EvergreenFir: You seem unaware of how bad the Erdogan regime has gotten, and how extensive its censorship. By this point, so many opposition outlets have been closed that something like this is practically an official statement. Even so -- it might still be relegated to the reactions sub-article. Wnt (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: I'm vaguely aware of Turkey's political climate, but only slightly. Still, even so, I don't think it warrants inclusion here per WP:NOTNEWS. Perhaps on the subarticle if it survives (I almost regret nominating it for AfD... I could just say "go put it on the reactions article"... lesson learned). Or perhaps on the newspaper's article? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I would be happy to see you go there and change your vote. Having the sub-article is good WP:summary style and it is ridiculously in excess of GNG requirements. Wnt (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Callinus regarding recent edit. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Portals

Someone has gone overboard with the portal links. 203.118.164.94 (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please be specific in what you are requesting be changed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Phone calls to 9-1-1 by Mateen

I read that he made three separate calls to 9-1-1. And I think that one -- perhaps two -- were hang up calls. This should be included in the article. I do not see any mention of it there. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think a brief mention would be good.- MrX 17:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

News reported first two were him hanging up then 911 called him back. Computationsaysno (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Final sentence of Trump material

There is a disagreement over the final sentence of the Trump material in this article.

User:Zaostao favors the following text (I'll call it the "Long Version"): Trump opposed calls for gun control measures, defending this position by referencing Paris's strict legislation regarding gun ownership and the November 2015 Paris attacks in his speech. [cites]

I favor the following text (I'll call it the "Short Version"): Trump opposed calls for gun-control measures, calling such policies ineffective.[cites]

Would anyone care to weight in on which version they prefer? I will make my own comment below. Neutrality^talk 01:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Favor Short Version per WP:WEIGHT and for reasons of style and good sense. The shorter version is simpler, to the point, less confusing, and far less wordy. The longer version strays further away from the core topic by getting into the candidates' rationales, and appears unbalanced because a corresponding sentence is not present in the Hillary material. Neutrality^talk 01:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Favor Short Version – In agreement with Neutrality that this is simpler and less-wordy. I don't think it needs the extra part to get the point across. United States Man (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Favor Short, if I have to choose. Rather delete all candidates EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Short version - The long version is repetitive and unnecessarily detailed. Of course, I stand by my many previous comments of being opposed to including any comments from political candidates and pundits.- MrX 01:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Delete all candidates This is a mass shooting, not an election. People are going to vote for whichever they like on the day of the election in five months (146 days). This will have no impact. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough, 146 days ago, Clinton said America might turn back the clock on progress in exactly one year and Trump said "Thank you, Florida!" InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delete all candidates. Everyone and their mother seems to have an opinion, and discerning between who's opinion is exactly worth keeping is like deciding when gray turns to black BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 04:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Delete all candidates. I personally feel that we should should trim the opinion section a fair bit; Perhaps only keep the first two paragraphs. A paragraph per candidate just feels silly. Icarosaurvus (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Delete all candidates. Needlessly contentious to have Clinton and Trump's responses and not Stein or Johnson. Zaostao (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Short is better, whole section likely should be trimmed. Computationsaysno (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Short but put long in the specific page for reactionsShadowDragon343 (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Gunman a Closet Homosexual?

It's been reported that the gunman was a regular at Pulse, used a homosexual dating app, and his wife had her suspicions about him. Far too early to claim he was homosexual of course, but if true does this mean the attack is not a hate crime? Surely an attack by a homosexual on a homosexual club cannot be a hate crime right? The claims may of course prove to be false but figured I'd raise the issue since seeing it mentioned in the media. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Doubt this will make it into the article unless it becomes widely covered by reliable sources. At this point it looks a little like a big rumor. United States Man (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing has been confirmed yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. This would also fall in line with my theory of this event being an act of pure domestic terrorism, with no real foreign influence other than what the shooter probably used as an excuse out of frustration or anger. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this sounds like a big rumor. Parsley Man (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course it can still be considered a hate crime just like Homosexuals who oppose same sex marriage are still considered to be "Homophobes" by many (I personally never use that word). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:DD72:AD54:36F2:F54 (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I say we wait until more sources cover it. LATimes is good, but at the moment it's unclear what it means, if anything. There's no deadline. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we may have more sources than just the LA Times at the Omar Mateen article. Parsley Man (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I suspected almost immediately that Omar Mateen might have been a closet homosexual or struggled with homosexual feelings. This is a lot like Howard Unruh. However, more sourcing is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's also similar to the case of Salah Abdeslam and Prince Abdulaziz, but solely based on witness accounts. As for whether a hate crime can be committed against somebody's own demographic, the answer is yes! (cf. internalized homophobia, self-hating Jew, et al.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.150.9 (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The LA Times and Orlando Sentinel have reports from witnesses that were shown a driver's license photo of Mateen by police and they recognised him. This will be reported by police. -- Callinus (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a case of internalized homophobia being turned outwards, which is quite common and routinely is violent. The core of it remains homophobia which taught him to hate that part of himself in the first place and was reinforced by society proposing anti-LGBT laws. Computationsaysno (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Collecting sources: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. Per [17] there is to be an interview with one of them on All In tonight. Sai ¿?✍ 13:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  Cross-reference: Omar_Mateen#Sexuality_allegations

Does anything published so far conflict with a scenario where Mateen simply wanted to chat with people to extract usable intel and case out the club to plan the attack? Remember, he was trained in security - he might have thought about the tactics carefully. The sheer deadliness of the attack makes you think it might not have been thrown together in ten minutes. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Although that's certainly a possibility for things closer to the event, the reports also include claims that he hit on a classmate in the police academy; that his wife said he had "gay tendencies"; that he was on gay dating apps a year ago; and that he was a regular. The first two don't jive with it being mere tactics or trolling for victims. Being a regular doesn't jive either; you don't need to go there often simply to know the layout and so forth. It also conflicts, from a tactical POV, with the report that recently he chatted with someone asking what gay clubs were particularly lively. It's entirely possible that he was looking for a bigger target once he decided to attack (would explain asking about multiple places). The long-term patronage doesn't really fit with planning a targeted attack, or with deciding only very late which place to attack. Even if either was the case, the wife's account & the attempted academy date certainly don't.

Disclosure: I run [18], which is the main reason I'm looking into this aspect of the story. I want to be fairly sure that he was in fact a closet case, and not simply looking for victims, before listing him on the site. (If I do, it would probably be in some manner of damnatio memoriae, as I do not wish to give his name or memory any further hold on the world.) Sai ¿?✍ 17:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

New source in favor of casing the place: [19]; see this page @ Talk:2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Wife_of_perpetrator_-_knowledge_of_attack_beforehand. However, that doesn't explain him being a regular, his "gay tendencies", or hitting on the police academy student. Sai ¿?✍ 18:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You can be a homosexual and still discriminate and hate LGBT people, the two are not mutually exclusive. Otherwise every LGBT person in history would be in favour of same-sex marriage or adoption, however that is not the case. Erzan (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• FBI Will Investigate Whether Orlando Shooter’s Sexuality Motivated Attack on Gay Nightclub – VIDEO, might help. Computationsaysno (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump implies the "Obama supports Muslim terrorism" conspiracy theory

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/trumps-implication-obama-was-involved-in-the-orlando-shooting/486770/ --Omgtotallyradical (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Better suited for Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 in my opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with EvergreenFir. I would also like to add that it's just the usual conspiracy theory nonsense with a bit of Trump in the mix, so I'm not sure exactly how notable it is in any sort of article. Parsley Man (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Mateen calls 9-1-1.

One of the introductory paragraphs states: In a 9-1-1 call shortly before the attack, he swore allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). This asserts that the 9-1-1 call occurred shortly before the attack. I believe that Mateen called 911 while in the midst of the attack. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You are correct according to http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooting-timeline/. I'll correct the language. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)